BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1288
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
1288 (Leno)
As Amended August 1, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 24-12
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Elections |5-2 |Weber, Gordon, Low, |Harper, Travis |
| | |Mullin, Nazarian |Allen |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |14-6 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Calderon, Daly, |Obernolte, Wagner |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Weber, Wood, Chau | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Authorizes a general law city, a general law county,
SB 1288
Page 2
or an educational district, as specified, to conduct a local
election using ranked choice voting (RCV), as specified.
Permits a general law city, a school district, and a district
not formed for municipal purposes to elect a candidate for
nonpartisan office at a primary election by majority vote,
instead of a plurality vote, as specified. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Allows a general law city, a school district, and a district
not formed for municipal purposes to require a candidate for
nonpartisan office that does not receive a majority of all
votes cast in a primary election to appear in a general or
runoff election, instead of being required to elect officials
using a single, plurality election, as specified.
2)Allows a general law city, a general law county, county board
of education, school district, or community college district,
with voter approval, to conduct a local election using RCV, as
specified.
3)Permits a county elections official, if a county board of
education, school district, or community college district
authorizes the use of RCV, to certify that the county lacks
the technological capacity to conduct elections by this method
before that method is used in any election, as specified.
4)Requires a jurisdiction that uses RCV or changes from a
plurality vote method to a majority vote method pursuant to
this bill, to conduct a voter education and outreach campaign,
as specified.
5)Provides that RCV is a method that allows voters to rank
candidates for office in order of preference and that
elections conducted by RCV may be used for both single-winner
SB 1288
Page 3
and multiple-winner elections. Provides that elections
conducted by RCV are tabulated in rounds, as specified.
6)Requires an elections official to publish and post tabulation
reports, as specified.
7)Makes other corresponding and technical changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Any costs to cities and counties to procure and obtain
certification of an election system with RCV capability and to
conduct voter education and outreach on RCV would be
significant, but would be nonreimbursable, as the bill is
permissible.
2)Minor one-time costs of $40,000 to the Secretary of State
(SOS) for RCV regulations. The Secretary of State (SOS) has
already developed guidelines for the handful of jurisdictions
currently conducting RCV.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "Under current law, general
law cities are only allowed to hold plurality winner elections
(i.e. most votes wins, even if the winner has less than majority
support). ?Under current law, general law cities are prohibited
from using the majoritarian voting systems commonly used by
charter cities and counties in California, for example the
traditional runoff or [RCV]?This bill would give local
governments (cities, counties, school districts, community
colleges) the ability to adopt a voting system that best matches
the needs of their community. It does not impose any new voting
system, but simply gives local jurisdictions additional options
which ensure that candidates are elected with majority support.
?Numerous other general law cities and counties are exploring
SB 1288
Page 4
using ranked choice voting, and the Legislature should allow
these cities the flexibility they need to serve their voters.
Cities and counties deserve the opportunity to use the electoral
systems that best address their unique needs."
Three cities and the City and County of San Francisco have all
chosen to conduct local elections using RCV. These
jurisdictions were able to choose to use RCV because they are
charter cities. Certain home rule provisions in California's
state constitution allow cities and counties to exercise a
greater degree of control over local affairs by adopting a
charter. Under current law the only way in which a general law
city or a general law county may conduct elections using RCV is
to become a charter jurisdiction. This bill sets up a new
mechanism that authorizes a general law city, a general law
county, and specified educational jurisdictions, with voter
approval, to conduct local elections using RCV.
There are no voting systems currently certified for general use
in California that have the capability to tabulate ballots cast
in an RCV election. The voting system used in San Francisco and
Alameda counties for elections conducted using RCV were
conditionally approved by the SOS. In 2013, based on San
Francisco and Alameda counties success in conducting multiple
elections using RCV-capable voting systems, the SOS approved use
of the RCV system to both counties. However, despite the fact
that the RCV voting system has been certified for use in both
San Francisco and Alameda counties, the use of the RCV system is
limited to only those jurisdictions. No other city or county in
California are allowed to purchase and use that system for an
election in California without separate approval by the SOS.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
SB 1288
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:
Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN:
0003737